Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt. … vs The Union Of India And 2 Ors on 6 December, 2017 – Case Summary

In the case of Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltd. vs The Union of India and 2 others, the Bombay High Court, under the bench of Naresh H. Patil, examined a series of writ petitions challenging the legality and constitutional validity of certain provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA). The petitioners argued that these provisions violated Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 20, and 300-A of the Constitution of India.

Facts of the Case

The case involved multiple writ petitions, including Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltd., Real Gem Buildtech Private Limited, Nirmal Ujwal Credit Co-operative Society Limited, Mudassar Builders and Developers, D. B. Realty Limited, Swapnil Promoters and Developers Private Limited, and MIG (Bandra) Realtors and Builders Pvt. Ltd. All these petitioners challenged the constitutional validity of several provisions of the RERA.

The RERA was enacted by the Parliament in 2016 to regulate the real estate sector, which had grown significantly but remained largely unregulated. The Act aimed to provide greater accountability towards consumers, reduce frauds and delays, and lower transaction costs. It sought to establish symmetry of information between the promoter and purchaser, transparency of contractual conditions, set minimum standards of accountability, and a fast-track dispute resolution mechanism.

Issues Raised

The petitioners initially challenged a broad range of provisions under the RERA. However, during the course of the hearing, they restricted their challenge to specific sections, including the first proviso to Section 3(1), Section 3(2)(a), explanation to Section 3, Section 4(2)(l)(C), Section 4(2)(l)(D), Section 5(3), first proviso to Section 6, Sections 7, 8, 18, 38, 40, 46(1)(b), 59, 60, 61, 63, 64 of RERA.

Court’s Observations

The court noted that the RERA was enacted to regulate the real estate sector and protect the interests of consumers. The Act sought to balance the interests of consumers and promoters by imposing certain responsibilities on both. The court also noted that the RERA aimed to establish a fast-track dispute resolution mechanism and induce professionalism and standardization in the sector.

The court observed that the petitioners had restricted their challenge to specific sections of the RERA during the hearing. The court stated that it would deal with the submissions of the learned counsel accordingly. The court also noted that although the validity of certain Rules of the Maharashtra Rules of 2017 was challenged in Writ Petition Nos.2711 and 2256 of 2017, none of the learned counsel advanced submissions regarding the challenge to the Rules. Therefore, the court decided not to deal with the challenge to the Rules framed under the RERA by the State of Maharashtra.

The court’s judgment on the validity of the challenged provisions of the RERA is not provided in the extracted content. However, the court’s detailed examination of the case and its careful consideration of the arguments presented by the petitioners demonstrate the complexity of the issues involved and the importance of the RERA in regulating the real estate sector.